Profiting from other's negative emotions might be questionable in some cases, but I don't think it is in this case. The "dudebro" tears Slick is shedding will be there whether Xanthe took them or not. The alternative to her taking them to fuel her trike is to simply let them waste on the ground. I dunno, I just see it as utilizing a readily available resource.

Obviously, we have a differing opinion. A similar argument could be made for Soylent Green, you know: they're going to die either way, so the alternative to taking them as fuel is to simply let them waste away.
Perhaps that's a bit extreme. That's what it sounds like to me, at any rate. It's highly possible that my analogy (or the ouevre of my posts) is wrong or imprecise.

Yeah, I'd have to disagree with that analogy. Mainly because people weren't aware Soylent Green was people. And also, big difference between causing deaths because it'd happen eventually and taking advantage of deaths that happen. In this strip Xanthe wasn't shown as causing the dudebro tears, they happened and she showed up to take them. I'd have a completely different reaction if she set out to intentionally cause "dudebro" tears with the specific intent of collecting them for fuel._________________My deviantArt - Blog-ity blog

Yeah, I'd have to disagree with that analogy. Mainly because people weren't aware Soylent Green was people. And also, big difference between causing deaths because it'd happen eventually and taking advantage of deaths that happen. In this strip Xanthe wasn't shown as causing the dudebro tears, they happened and she showed up to take them. I'd have a completely different reaction if she set out to intentionally cause "dudebro" tears with the specific intent of collecting them for fuel.

Fair enough. I still don't like the idea of profiting from Slick's tears. I don't really have a well-reasoned defense for my feelings, though. _________________If at first you don't succeed [in persuading or explaining something to me], then try and try again.

so i was going through the thread and ran onto ms m's post about "mary sue"s. I have never heard that term before so I read the articles to get a better understanding. one of the authors mentioned that they got their definition from tvtropes so i read the definition there (i'm still a bit confused because the term seems to so many definitions). at the bottom the page though they had sub categories for ms sue. one of which caught my interest
here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FixerSue
i don't mean to start anything but this kinda seems to fit...
IMO however, she does not have the traits of the typical sue: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CommonMarySueTraits

The fact that it's insensitive to do is good enough. You don't need to dive any deeper than that. Even if you are someone who agrees with her most of the time, even if you adore her character, like I do, there is no denying that it's insensitive to take advantage of the fact that some guy is crying, for whatever reason he may have._________________Character Chart | Terminology Dictionary | Flashback Strips

The fact that it's insensitive to do is good enough. You don't need to dive any deeper than that. Even if you are someone who agrees with her most of the time, even if you adore her character, like I do, there is no denying that it's insensitive to take advantage of the fact that some guy is crying, for whatever reason he may have.

Would you believe it if I said that's not enough of a reason for me? I've gotta sort my feelings out. _________________If at first you don't succeed [in persuading or explaining something to me], then try and try again.

The fact that it's insensitive to do is good enough. You don't need to dive any deeper than that. Even if you are someone who agrees with her most of the time, even if you adore her character, like I do, there is no denying that it's insensitive to take advantage of the fact that some guy is crying, for whatever reason he may have.

Yeah, Miss Magenta beat me to it. She didn't even bother to find out why Slick was suffering. Pretty cold move on her part.

Miss Magenta wrote:

Show me one instance where she is going out of her way to hurt ANYONE.

She hasn't necessarily gone out of her way to hurt anyone, but sometimes she can be a bit of a jerk. Although, I can kind of forgive that one because of one of the panels here._________________My deviantArt - Blog-ity blog

The fact that it's insensitive to do is good enough. You don't need to dive any deeper than that. Even if you are someone who agrees with her most of the time, even if you adore her character, like I do, there is no denying that it's insensitive to take advantage of the fact that some guy is crying, for whatever reason he may have.

Would you believe it if I said that's not enough of a reason for me? I've gotta sort my feelings out. :P

perhaps since the insensitivity of her actions is fairly obvious it seems that she should be aware of it, hopefully she's not being intentionally insensitive. doing something insensitive while knowing it's insensitive is worse than doing it and not knowing because you understand that it makes people feel bad and yet still choose to do it.

She hasn't necessarily gone out of her way to hurt anyone, but sometimes she can be a bit of a jerk. Although, I can kind of forgive that one because of one of the panels here.

I wouldn't say that she's a jerk, so much as she's too emotionally distant. In fact, up until Nana's day in the life strip and the strip that revealed her name (as well as Tess's name) it didn't seem like she really particularly cared about anyone on a personal level. Male OR female. I don't think slapping Legion's hand was the right action, but it might have been the action Tat felt would be most humorous for the strip.

Although in that sunday strip you linked, I don't think that really has any relevance to her personally because she doesn't seem to have any personal connections to the strip at hand. She might not have been involved in the coding of that hack at all, including the messages within. And thus we do not know for sure if she agrees with the sentiments that appeared when the hack was activated. She may, or she may not, but Tat doesn't seem particularly keen on elaborating._________________Character Chart | Terminology Dictionary | Flashback Strips

She hasn't necessarily gone out of her way to hurt anyone, but sometimes she can be a bit of a jerk. Although, I can kind of forgive that one because of one of the panels here.

I wouldn't say that she's a jerk, so much as she's too emotionally distant. In fact, up until Nana's day in the life strip and the strip that revealed her name (as well as Tess's name) it didn't seem like she really particularly cared about anyone on a personal level. Male OR female. I don't think slapping Legion's hand was the right action, but it might have been the action Tat felt would be most humorous for the strip.

Although in that sunday strip you linked, I don't think that really has any relevance to her personally because she doesn't seem to have any personal connections to the strip at hand. She might not have been involved in the coding of that hack at all, including the messages within. And thus we do not know for sure if she agrees with the sentiments that appeared when the hack was activated. She may, or she may not, but Tat doesn't seem particularly keen on elaborating.

Fair points. Although, I wasn't saying she is a jerk, I was just saying she can be one sometimes. Being emotionally distant can have that effect on occasion.

As for the Sunday strip I linked. I think that because we rarely see the other members of the sisterhood compared to how much we see Xanthe I have a tendency to attribute their actions to her. At this point in the story I find it difficult to relate to them as separate entities. Just not enough depth to the characters yet I guess._________________My deviantArt - Blog-ity blog

There are varieties of feminism, but much more just tics of feminist rhetoric (like calling everyone, and especially people who go against message, "dude"), that annoy me to no end. I like to think there are feminist ideals I very much sympathize with, that when it comes down to it what I believe is that feminism has been a Good Thing, but maybe I am self-deluded on that point.

That being said, I think what bothers me about this arc, and the development of Sinfest lately, isn't that Slick isn't given enough character development, or anything like that.

It's more that I feel like the way Sinfest used to be, everyone was a parody of some view or other, and what was amusing was to watch all these different stereotypes clash with each other.

But with the introduction of feminism into the universe the comic is no longer just satirizing the downfalls of another ideology -- rather feminism is being set up as the one true thing, the one protagonist, in the whole Sinfest universe.

Everything else -- Buddhism, Christianity, God, capitalism, commercialism, sexism, gets its day -- but I liked the idea that Sinfest was just making fun of people's silly ideas generally, that it was being written from a more skeptical -- that is to say, less engaged -- point of view.

To support one viewpoint among others makes it start to feel more like another partisan effort. Conservatives make fun of liberals, liberals make fun of conservatives -- it's all the same. I thought the satire of Sinfest had somehow managed to rise above that, and while making fun of all these things, it also accorded them a kind of disdainful respect, because for all their faults, they were human.

People across ideologies would have an opportunity to laugh at themselves without feeling bad about it, in the end. It was a release, after a fashion, because it satirized the very ideological wars that are exhausting us.

(It was called "Sinfest" -- because it was a display of all our sins, in the carnival fashion. But this emphasis on feminism is steadily moving the comic towards Lent.)

So it's precisely because I saw the purpose of Sinfest as mainly satirical that the last thing I hoped for from it was more character development. Sinfest can keep moving in this direction, I guess, and just like Tat says, I'll probably still be here -- because for all I don't like the direction, it's well drawn and it has wit (of which today's comic is a case in point).

But I still feel like something is lost. Sinfest doesn't have the same irreverence that it used to, because it's signed on to something. It's become engaged. Moving in this direction, perhaps the "fest" ought eventually to be taken out of the title. Now it's more about sin, or a particular sin, and what is to be done about it.

But I still feel like something is lost. Sinfest doesn't have the same irreverence that it used to, because it's signed on to something. It's become engaged. Moving in this direction, perhaps the "fest" ought eventually to be taken out of the title. Now it's more about sin, or a particular sin, and what is to be done about it.

Tat seems to feel bad about the stuff he's drawn in the past. I was just digging through the archives and while I think this is a wonderful comic, I can't help but wonder what the point of all of this is except to inform. Yes, this is the good, but then... Sinfest has always, always, always parodied the patriarchy (or so it seemed to me). Look at the matriarchy arc and the hyper-masculine response that the male characters had, as well as the militaristic state that the Matriarchy was depicted to be; this is satire all-around. By making the characters dependent upon things like porn, food, and the validation given by enticing men, I got the notion that Tat believed these things ought to be re-examined and either rejected or changed.

...That being said, I can see this as something of a plot device. 'Nique, as confrontational as she has become, has experienced some real growth as a result of the introduction of the Revolution characters. Maybe Tat's aiming to make all of his characters grow... but I figure part of the entertainment value, the tragedy, and the takeaway message was that none of these characters grow, that their vices only hurt them, that these things are largely bad.

But yes, something's lost here. Are we ready to poke fun at feminism and not take it beyond a simple joke, though? _________________If at first you don't succeed [in persuading or explaining something to me], then try and try again.

Are we ready to poke fun at feminism and not take it beyond a simple joke, though?

Are you aware of the fact that he actually did poke fun of feminism in Sinfest's original college run? In fact the very first strip was in response to a feminist newsletter. So technically, in a way Sinfest literally began with feminism.

I can't tell if your "not take it beyond a simple joke" part is meant to imply that you are aware, but are excluding it, or are unaware and are just saying you don't want the forums to get all up in arms about the idea of him poking fun at it (again) in a hypothetical situation._________________Character Chart | Terminology Dictionary | Flashback Strips

I can't tell if your "not take it beyond a simple joke" part is meant to imply that you are aware, but are excluding it, or are unaware and are just saying you don't want the forums to get all up in arms about the idea of him poking fun at it (again) in a hypothetical situation.

I was unaware and concerned about our hypothetical collective response._________________If at first you don't succeed [in persuading or explaining something to me], then try and try again.